Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

[hostmaster]

I disagree, and think that registration of subassignments should NOT be 
required in these cases.

For example, I go to a trade show, and rent a booth.  I, representing my 
company obtain internet access from the trade show producers (another 
company) via wifi.  I connect to that wifi using third party software, 
that allows me to use the wifi as a WAN link, and receive a /60 of IPv6 
space from the host network for use on my devices attached by wire to a 
LAN in my booth.  I use that internet access all week or weekend during 
the entire length of the show.  I then pack up my equipment, never to use 
that /60 again.  In any case, even if this did trigger registration, the 
network owner has seven days to make the registration visible, and I will 
be long gone.

Why should that short term use trigger a need for registration?  If I 
abuse that network while connected, the reports will go properly to the 
owner/manager of that wifi network, and not me. If registration happened, 
the reports of abuse would come to me, and I could hide the abuse from the 
wifi company who assigned them to me which is not very desirable.

Other examples include students of universities, who are actually often 
given a specific assignment within IPv6 block within the university IP 
space for use during their entire time as a student, or an employee on a 
BYOD plan being given a specific assignment of space for their device 
during their employment, or for that matter even a guest of the public 
wifi at that business.

During discussion of 2017-5, it more or less was agreed that the proper 
amount of space given to end users should be a minimum of a /64 because of 
SLAAC, and the standard amount should in fact be a /48.  Unless these 
guests/employees/students are given unique routing for their /48 or more 
assignment, the current adopted policy does NOT require the registration 
of these addresses in SWIP, regardless of the length of use.

Just because the author is thinking of a future where each device/user is 
given an entire block of IPv6 space for their use, rather than just a 
single address in a /64 that is shared with others. This assignment helps 
protect the users from each other by keeping them each on their own block 
of addresses.  I think the current adopted policy of 2017-5 permits this 
use, and all this proposal is doing is to more specifically spell out this
permitted use, since it is unclear to some who read the policy.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Tue, 15 May 2018, Roberts, Orin wrote:

In my opinion, the organisation that holds the parent block is still the 
responsible party.
In any case, ARIN considers its members to be organisations and not individuals.
i.e. students, employees, guests wouldn???t fit that criteria.

By its very nature, hotspots do not track the end-users and VPNs are considered 
private traffic between host and public facing server.

However an Organisation provides resources to another Organisation, however 
short the timeframe, should be considered a sub-assignment.



Orin Roberts


From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: May-14-18 5:04 PM
To: David Farmer <far...@umn.edu>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 
Sub-Assignments

While students and employees shouldn???t be considered temporary in nature, 
generally speaking the assignment of addresses to their devices is a different 
matter and is (for most situations) temporary in nature.

Owen


On May 14, 2018, at 00:17, David Farmer <far...@umn.edu<mailto:far...@umn.edu>> 
wrote:
Students in the case of a University or other school, or staff/employees in the case of most organizations 
shouldn't be considered "temporary", how about "ancillary". On the other hand guest or 
customers of an organizations "temporary" seems an appropriate description and a timeframe of day 
or weeks also seems appropriate.

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Owen DeLong 
<o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
I disagree.

For example, since a university student is one of the examples cited and is 
entirely appropriate, I would argue that even though the student may have the 
same address assigned persistently to a desktop computer in a dorm room for 
months or even years, I believe it is still within policy intent. As such, I 
believe that ???temporary??? without clarification as to definite time period 
is more appropriate.

Does this open up some abuse possibilities and loop-holes? Sure. It does, but 
so do many of our other policies. In general we???ve decided that benefiting 
the community and creating policy with a clear intent for people of good will 
to follow is superior to attempting to address every corner case and close 
every loophole. I see no reason not to follow that modus operandi here.

Owen



On May 11, 2018, at 7:14 AM, David Farmer 
<far...@umn.edu<mailto:far...@umn.edu>> wrote:

I'd suggest "temporary, in a timeframe of days or weeks," is what we should 
say.  In my mind, implying something like 90 days would probably be approaching an outer 
limit, and many months or a year exceeds the policy intent we have. That said, I don't 
think there is a good reason for a bright line within the policy either.

Thanks.

On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 4:31 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML 
<arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
???We don???t care if temporary is taken as ???hours, minutes, days, months or 
years????

When we have the examples as ???students, employees, etc.???, I think it is 
clear the intent but removing them we are missing this piece, unless the staff 
interprets the policy manual looking at the original ???complete??? 
justification text of the policy proposal. However, that has the disadvantage 
that the community (a newcomer) it not recalling the background of the policy 
proposal, that???s why I was using the examples in my original text.

Regards,
Jordi


De: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>>
Fecha: jueves, 10 de mayo de 2018, 17:19
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
CC: <arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>>
Asunto: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 
Sub-Assignments

I think the best word would be temporary.

As you have said, it denotes a connection which is transient in nature. You 
come, you get an address while you???re connected, then you leave.

This is temporary. Even if you???re there for several days (as in a hotel guest 
network), it???s still temporary in nature.

Owen


On May 10, 2018, at 8:29 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML 
<arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:

I don???t think that will help, on the contrary ??? you can use both static or 
dynamic mechanism for both temporary and non-temporary assignments.

What I think it was clear is the differentiation between a ???permanent 
broadband service??? and a temporary service (you come to your workplace and 
get connectivity while you???re there, same if you are a ???guest visitor???).

So it still looks to me that ???non-permanently??? is more obvious? Maybe 
???non-continuously????


Regards,
Jordi


De: Chris Woodfield <ch...@semihuman.com<mailto:ch...@semihuman.com>>
Fecha: jueves, 10 de mayo de 2018, 15:19
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>>
CC: <arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>>
Asunto: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 
Sub-Assignments

The two terms, from my reading, are synonymous but carry different implications, 
with the term ???non-permanently??? implying a longer period of time than 
???temporarily". In practice, It will most likely be a distinction built into 
how addresses are assigned by the organization (i.e. static or dynamic assignment); 
would using that as our distinction be a useful avenue to explore?

-C


On May 10, 2018, at 8:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
<jordi.pa...@consulintel.es<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>> wrote:

When I first used ???temporarily??? in a preliminary version of the proposal, I 
was argued that it is not clear then if it is ???minutes, hours, days, ??????, 
so non-permanently, looks like clearer in that sense ??? It may be a matter of 
not being native English speaker.


Regards,
Jordi


De: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>> en nombre de 
John Santos <j...@egh.com<mailto:j...@egh.com>>
Fecha: jueves, 10 de mayo de 2018, 15:01
Para: <arin-ppml@arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>>
Asunto: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 
Sub-Assignments

I find the word "temporarily" even more obvious than "non-permanently".  If 
those two words don't mean the same thing, then we definitely need a definition.

On 5/10/2018 5:08 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
What will be your opinion if I amend this proposal, so it works for both IPv4 
and IPv6, having this text in section 2.5 (Allocate and Assign), make it 
shorter and more generic:

???A unique IPv4 or IPv6 address or a unique IPv6 /64 prefix, which is 
non-permanently provided to third parties, shall not be considered an 
assignment???

Alternatively, if we don???t want to go so far as to define the ???size???:

???An IPv4 or IPv6 block of address, which is non-permanently provided to third 
parties, shall not be considered an assignment???

I didn???t found short-term defined in the NRPM. Do you still think we need to 
define ???permanently??? ? I think saying non-permanently it is quite obvious, 
but maybe folks disagree ???

Regards,
Jordi


De: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net><mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> en nombre de 
Jo Rhett <jrh...@netconsonance.com><mailto:jrh...@netconsonance.com>
Fecha: mi??rcoles, 9 de mayo de 2018, 20:37
Para: <andrew....@quark.net><mailto:andrew....@quark.net>
CC: <arin-ppml@arin.net><mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>
Asunto: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 
Sub-Assignments

"Nominative, verb indirect" isn't English ;) Clean english structure would be:

"A unique address or a unique /64 prefix that is non-permanently provided to third 
parties shall not be considered an assignment. "

Or if you really want a descriptive phrase that modifies the nominative you can 
get commas like so:




"A unique address or a unique /64 prefix, which is non-permanently provided to third 
parties, shall not be considered an assignment."

I would also argue that this phrase is very vague unless "permanently" is 
defined elsewhere in the document. Wasn't there some phrasing around short-term 
assignment? (sorry, too busy/too lazy to grab the entire doc right now)

On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:40 PM Andrew Dul 
<andrew....@quark.net<mailto:andrew....@quark.net>> wrote:
I'd like to suggest that the proposed policy text be shorted and clarified.  I 
don't believe all the examples are necessary in the definition section.

Add to the end of NRPM Section 2.5 - https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#two5

Current draft text:

The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently 
provided to third parties, on a link operated by the original receiver of the 
assignment, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. This includes, for 
example, guests or employees (devices or servers), hotspots, and point-to-point 
links or VPNs. The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or 
broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment. Only the addressing of 
the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that addressing can't be 
used (neither directly or indirectly) for the actual communication.

My suggested rewrite:

A unique address or a unique /64 prefix that is non-permanently provided to 
third parties, shall not be considered an assignment.



On 4/24/2018 11:57 AM, David Farmer wrote:
I note that the text in question is the subject of an editorial change that the 
AC has recently forwarded to Board for review, at a minimum the policy text 
need to be updated to account for this editorial change. Further, I do not 
support the text as written.

I support a change to section 2 that is not quite so IPv6 specific and focused 
more on the idea that providing hotspot, guest access, or other such temporary 
access does not necessitate the making of re-assignments from a policy 
perspective.  Furthermore, such uses are not in conflict with the conditions of 
an assignment (made by ARIN) or re-assignment (made by an ISP or LIR). Also, If 
the details of RFC8273 need to be mentioned at all, they should be someplace in 
section 6, not in section 2, the definitions of assign, allocate, re-assign and 
re-allocate should remain agnostic about IP version.

Thanks.

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:22 PM, ARIN <i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net>> 
wrote:
On 18 April 2018 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-254: 
Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments" as a Draft Policy.

Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_4.html

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate 
the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft policy with 
ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy 
Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:

* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community

The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)



Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

Problem Statement:

When the policy was drafted, the concept of assignments/sub-assignments did not 
consider a practice very common in IPv4 which is replicated and even amplified 
in IPv6: the use of IP addresses for point-to-point links or VPNs.

In the case of IPv6, instead of unique addresses, the use of unique prefixes 
(/64) is increasingly common.

Likewise, the policy failed to consider the use of IP addresses in hotspots, or 
the use of IP addresses by guests or employees in Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) 
and many other similar cases.

Finally, the IETF has recently approved the use of a unique /64 prefix per 
interface/host (RFC8273) instead of a unique address. This, for example, allows 
users to connect to a hotspot, receive a /64 such that they are ???isolated??? 
from other users (for reasons of security, regulatory requirements, etc.) and 
they can also use multiple virtual machines on their devices with a unique 
address for each one (within the same /64).

Section 2.5 (Definitions/Allocate and Assign), explicitly prohibits such 
assignments, stating that ???Assignments... are not to be sub-assigned to other 
parties???.

This proposal clarifies this situation in this regard and better define the 
concept, particularly considering new uses of IPv6 (RFC8273), by means of a new 
paragraph.

5.    Policy Statement

Actual Text

???    Assign - To assign means to delegate address space to an ISP or 
end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. 
Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific 
organizations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties.

New Text

???    Assign - To assign means to delegate address space to an ISP or 
end-user, for specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate. 
Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific 
organizations and are not to be sub-assigned to other parties.

The fact that a unique address or even a unique /64 prefix is non-permanently 
provided to third parties, on a link operated by the original receiver of the 
assignment, shall not be considered a sub-assignment. This includes, for 
example, guests or employees (devices or servers), hotspots, and point-to-point 
links or VPNs. The provision of addressing for permanent connectivity or 
broadband services is still considered a sub-assignment. Only the addressing of 
the point-to-point link itself can be permanent and that addressing can't be 
used (neither directly or indirectly) for the actual communication.



6.    Comments

a.    Timetable for implementation:

Immediate

b.    Anything else:

Situation in other regions: This situation, has already been corrected in RIPE, 
and the policy was updated in a similar way, even if right now there is a small 
discrepancy between the policy text that reached consensus and the RIPE NCC 
Impact Analysis. A new policy proposal has been submitted to amend that, and 
the text is the same as presented by this proposal at ARIN. Same text has also 
been submitted to AfriNIC, LACNIC and APNIC.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.



--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:far...@umn.edu<mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave 
SE<https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g>      
  Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================





_______________________________________________

PPML

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to

the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).

Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:

http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message 
because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing 
list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact 
i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es<http://www.consulintel.es/>
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.






_______________________________________________

ARIN-PPML

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to

the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).

Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:

https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.




--

John Santos

Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.

781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message 
because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing 
list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact 
i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.

**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es<http://www.consulintel.es/>
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es<http://www.consulintel.es/>
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es<http://www.consulintel.es/>
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.



--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:far...@umn.edu<mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave 
SE<https://maps.google.com/?q=2218+University+Ave+SE&entry=gmail&source=g>      
  Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List 
(ARIN-PPML@arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net<mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.




--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:far...@umn.edu<mailto:email%3afar...@umn.edu>
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.